add_frame

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Add a new frame' but doesn't clarify if this is a mutation (likely yes), what permissions are needed, how it affects existing frames/layers, or what the response looks like. This leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified for a tool that appears to modify project state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a tool that likely modifies project state (adding frames to layers), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should provide more context. It doesn't explain what a 'frame' entails in this system, how the addition affects the project, or what happens upon success/failure, making it incomplete for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for both parameters ('projectId' and 'layerIndex'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'frame' is or how 'layerIndex' interacts with the layer structure. This meets the baseline score of 3 given the high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a new frame to a layer'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'duplicate_frame' or 'remove_frame', which would require more specific context about what makes 'add_frame' unique.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing project or layer), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'duplicate_frame' or 'clear_frame', leaving the agent with minimal context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.